Atheists are right...

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: dfnj2015

I think you misunderstand the theist when they speak of needing God for morality. They are not saying you need God to be moral, but rather you need God for morality to be anything more than a mere illusion of the mind. So if you believe there are truly Good and truly Evil actions, you should believe in God because:

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
Objective moral values and duties do exist
Therefore God exist

seems to be a false dichotomy. if not this one thing, then it absolutely has to be the other. lets not be quite so hasty with our deductive reasoning. the nature of morality is ambiguous at best as we can see from comparing cultures around the world and across time. similarly, our standards and approaches to theology also differ from culture to culture for reasons that seem largely concerned with the people invested in theology. the cult dictates the deity.

a reply to: luthier

You don't understand Aquinas and please tell me the piss poor job?

Yes. I'm saying you have a piss poor understanding of Aquinas.

You're shifting the necessity of being onto "conscious observers". That completely undermines what Aquinas meant by a Necessary Being. If our reality depends on conscious observers, as you have said, then reality is contingent upon those conscious observers.

Do you not understand Aquinas' Necessary Being philosophy?? Do you not know how his philosophy differentiates a necessary being from a contingent one?

Deism=Theism first off.

No. It does not. Deism originated as a refutation towards theism!

Deism is the belief that a creator god does not intervene in the affairs of the Universe at all. Theism claims otherwise. There is a reason this word came about. They are not synonymous.

Can you explain how Aquinas' necesary being doesn't fit a deist view?

Can you say anything that demonstrates you know anything about Aquinas or deism??

a reply to: luciferslight

Yeah that is correct. Neither atheists or religious folks can provide proof of an existing/nonexistent being.

Right. How can we investigate that which is said to exist outside the limits of knowledge? Our knowledge is limited to what we can observe. What we can observe is the physical Universe with our human senses.

Claiming any truth outside of that is a matter of faith. Faith is belief without evidence.

a reply to: darkbake

I think that believing in a God provides a moral framework for society so that everyone has the same ideals and can work together with each other.

My point is, religion is necessary for humans to work together as a complex society.

That's not true at all. Non-religious people can be very moral. I'm one of them. I've never committed a crime. The worst thing i've done is taken my girlfriend for granted (which is bad). Yet, nothing to write a post on immorality about.

I spend most of my time, with my entirely non-religious family, running a care home for medically fragile children. Children who's parents were usually monsters that abused them physically or sexually. Most of them were Christian. Work that out!

Here is a quote to think about from Sam Harris:

"According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies—countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom—are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality—belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction, societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God, each factor may enable the other, or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a society’s health."

a reply to: Aedaeum

Lack of knowledge or perception of something does not negate the "thing" - in this case, a Creator. To state "Atheists are right..." means to implicate that one understands the breadth of God and has decided that God does not exist. In a sense, to say that God does not exist, implicates that one can somehow fathom that which is outside ones conceivable reality.

Now that the logic is laid out, let's make clear that Atheism is not the belief that a God does not exist, but an understanding that one does not have enough information to say "God exists". Again, no one can make the claim that God does not exist as we are confined to the limits of our conceptualization, which is temporal-bound.

Starred.

Someone gets it

a reply to: donhuangenaro

atheism is just another belief system, it's a belief that nothingness exist

lol.

I believe the Universe exists based on the reality of my capability to observe it.

Are you saying ones ability to recognize something exists is contingent upon religion??

a reply to: luthier

There does not need to be physical evidence. This is where you go wrong.

Do you have a definate answer, one that science provides to disregard a prime mover or necesary being?

Wow.

You're asking us for a definitive scientific answer on 'god' and also saying physical evidence is irrelevant. Do you even science, bruh?

To ask for scientific evidence should entail ones appreciation for physical evidence. Which you apparently don't have any of.

I got no problem with irreligious or religious people. I got a problem with extremists/radicals, whatever their flavor.

Having said that, I'm equally disappointed with both sides when it comes to understanding religion.
For example, the OP argues he is moral so why religion. Well, simple... that question is flawed because morality has little to do with religion. It has more to do with other things.

Religion isn't really about your morality or anyone else's, but it can seem like it is. It isn't about political control or campfire stories or war. It's really about self-transcendence.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Exactly, yet I see no evidence provided for or against this argument.

originally posted by: BlueMule
I got no problem with irreligious or religious people. I got a problem with extremists/radicals, whatever their flavor.

Having said that, I'm equally disappointed with both sides when it comes to understanding religion.
For example, the OP argues he is moral so why religion. Well, simple... that question is flawed because morality has little to do with religion. It has more to do with other things.

Religion isn't really about your morality or anyone else's, but it can seem like it is. It isn't about political control or campfire stories or war. It's really about self-transcendence.

self transcendence is an oxymoron. you are using the thing that is being transcended as a reference point for that which is doing the transcending. take away that reference point (self) and transcendence is an illusion just like time and matter are supposed to be.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes. Talking about self-transcendence is kinda like trying to chew your own teeth with your teeth. Or see your own eye directly. It's paradoxical.

So if one is focused on preaching religion & morality to others, instead of dancing in the heart of paradox, then one is doing religion wrong imho.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
People behave morally without religion then why is religion even necessary? Much of what is in the Bible seems like made up fairy tales with no modern day evidence supporting it. So are atheists right? Since there's no evidence for God's existence and people who don't go to church behave just a moral as those who do go to church whats the point of believing in God?

Namaste, friend. First of all, you must first understand that religion is man-made. It is an organized way for people to decipher and to understand God. You must learn to separate religion from God. Your Father and Our Father has nothing to do with organized religion. You can live in the woods, never heard of religion, yet you can still get to know God. Your separation from God is an illusion from the very beginning. It doesn't matter what religion you are in, what belief system you subscribe to, or live life with a neutral attitude. It doesn't matter what you do or what you think, God is always connected to mankind, since we all are fragments that came from God.

Thus, you are correct that religion is not necessary to believe in God and then know Him. But what is necessary is that you and I are the Kingdom of Heaven. Nothing will ever change that. And we must all return to God in one way or another.

Peace be with you.

a reply to: TzarChasm

seems to be a false dichotomy. if not this one thing, then it absolutely has to be the other. lets not be quite so hasty with our deductive reasoning. the nature of morality is ambiguous at best as we can see from comparing cultures around the world and across time. similarly, our standards and approaches to theology also differ from culture to culture for reasons that seem largely concerned with the people invested in theology. the cult dictates the deity.

I assume what you are referring to as a false dichotomy is premise 1, "If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist". Lets start by pointing out a dichotomy would be phrased as such, "P or not P". A false dichotomy would be phrased "P or Q". I have given a given you a conditional statement, not a dichotomy. Basically, all you are saying is there is a logically alternative theory for the existence of moral values and duties asides from some form of God. My statement is phrased "if not P, then not Q." The negation of my conditional would be "if not P, then Q." So in other words the negation of premise 1 is "If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do exist." Really all you have done is state the negation of premise one. If you want to consider it a disproof, you need to come up with a way to prove objective moral values and duties can exist without some type of theistic God.

That nature of morality is some time hard to discern, but so is the answer to a complex mathematical equation. The fact that people don't get the right answer all the time doesn't mean there isn't one. The theist is not arguing one must know God in order to recognize morality. The theist is arguing that without existence God one cannot make moral claims that are true, nor do humans have a duty to treat human beings any particular way.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

seems to be a false dichotomy. if not this one thing, then it absolutely has to be the other. lets not be quite so hasty with our deductive reasoning. the nature of morality is ambiguous at best as we can see from comparing cultures around the world and across time. similarly, our standards and approaches to theology also differ from culture to culture for reasons that seem largely concerned with the people invested in theology. the cult dictates the deity.

I assume what you are referring to as a false dichotomy is premise 1, "If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist". Lets start by pointing out a dichotomy would be phrased as such, "P or not P". A false dichotomy would be phrased "P or Q". I have given a given you a conditional statement, not a dichotomy. Basically, all you are saying is there is a logically alternative theory for the existence of moral values and duties asides from some form of God. My statement is phrased "if not P, then not Q." The negation of my conditional would be "if not P, then Q." So in other words the negation of premise 1 is "If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do exist." Really all you have done is state the negation of premise one. If you want to consider it a disproof, you need to come up with a way to prove objective moral values and duties can exist without some type of theistic God.

That nature of morality is some time hard to discern, but so is the answer to a complex mathematical equation. The fact that people don't get the right answer all the time doesn't mean there isn't one. The theist is not arguing one must know God in order to recognize morality. The theist is arguing that without existence God one cannot make moral claims that are true, nor do humans have a duty to treat human beings any particular way.

we all have an obligation as civil servants to "be excellent to each other" as bill and ted would say (insert guitar riff here) and if you are unable or unwilling to do so, then your obligation is to limit your exposure to society. this is based in the theory that if you are not at least minimally engaged in being publicly helpful, you will inevitably be publicly hurtful unless you limit your exposure. circumstance will provoke you and your reaction will determine which category you are in. such speculation aside, morality is not exclusively a theological construct nor does it rely on spirituality in order to function. this was my point.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Its amazing when one has no understanding of definitions of words (especially a self declared philosphy degree holder).

Physical evidence is not always possible. There are theories from quantum mechanics nearly 100 years old finally being tested by technology only currently available for measurement.

Some of those measurements seem to confuse you. Like superposition. Which has been created with a visable object. Or entanglement being used for communications satellites.

Thank "god" they didn't give up because of lack of physical proof.

God=metaphysics=lack of physical evidence.

So here in philosphy we use Popper's falsifiability. We can certainly say what doesn't hold up to reason or logic equations.

Falsifiability and reason in philosphy metaphysics is what math is in science. Good reason and falsifiability can prove what is unreasonable about god.

If you understood philosphy at all you would have known I have argued several academic points that are part of any philosphers training in concepts and arguments for god.

I believe you said you were a religeon and philosphy degree holder, yet you have no idea what is being argued in these mostly famous debates.

Metaphysics come down to what you find a convincing argument. I can expect physical results from some sciences while apreciating the philosphy and theory of what is guiding new tests to be designed or causing expansion of knowledge.

And by the way I asked for an argument agains a prime mover, which is a very specific god concept. Theoretically yes science can say, the cosmos works like this and god isn't necesary at all. There is no need for a necesary being or prime mover because of this natural function.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You bring up a very good point about the social contract and morality. There is a baseline morality and deontology that you have to accept just to interact and use public space and infrastructure.

Morality is not tied to religeon or require it to be actualized.

a reply to: TzarChasm

we all have an obligation as civil servants to "be excellent to each other" as bill and ted would say (insert guitar riff here) and if you are unable or unwilling to do so, then your obligation is to limit your exposure to society.

On what basis do you make the claim that we have that obligation?

morality is not exclusively a theological construct nor does it rely on spirituality in order to function. this was my point.

Oh I was well aware that this was the point you were trying to make, and again it is simply you asserting the negation of premise 1 in the moral argument. As I said before, if you want that to be a disproof you need to show there is some way for objective moral values and duties to exist apart from God.

Atheists are right.

A bold statement, considering there isn't any proof that existence is by chance and not designed.

The world is very well designed, sphere shaped planets and moons and a planet that is the correct distance from the sun it orbits to support life, the body is a well designed machine and could not have evolved from a single celled organism by chance, nothing proves that we did.

The universe is intelligently designed, that's beyond question, the only question is what is that intelligence?

Science has been presenting evolution and the big bang theory, unproven theories, as facts. Essentially by altering the definition of theory.

They are just guesses, something to tell people so it seems like we know more then we do, and the big bang is something that Catholicism supports because it is easy to say God did it, and doesn't disturb religion.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You have an obligation to the social contract if you choose to take part in society.

Like say the Internet or a hospital.

Otherwise your just a thief.

a reply to: luthier

You have an obligation to the social contract if you choose to take part in society. Like say the Internet or a hospital. Otherwise your just a thief.

Nothing about being in a society says I am obligated to behave a certain way. There may be consequences for certain actions depending on the society I live in, but that doesn't mean I have some duty to treat my neighbor that way. It simply means I may have incentive to treat him one way rather than another.